The Queen and Australia: Residences, Governor-General, etc...


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
From today's Sydney Morning Herald, a view of Australia's constitutional arrangements and Prince William's visit.

Princely magnetism could swing views on monarchy

Prince William and Australia visit

excerpts...

"The visit of Prince William is an opportunity to restate the case for limited monarchy...Absolute monarchy is inherited dictatorship and abhorrent. But a limited monarchy is democracy with an umpire at the apex whose sole executive role is to resolve political stalemates. Some modern minds feel it is old-fashioned or anti-democratic but despite its quirks, it works.

A limited monarch's only substantial role is to resolve a political impasse that may arise within even the most seasoned democracy. The monarch assumes the role, not by merit or political calculation but by an incontestable selection process: birth. Owing no political favours, the crown is a useful safety valve to restore equilibrium as an impartial player.

Perhaps the strongest impulse to retain the present arrangements will come not from any theoretical considerations but from the understated magnetism and affability of the young prince. William seems to have inherited many of the qualities that made his mother the most universally loved person of the late 20th century. I for one am happy to extend a warm welcome to a young man who is both a friend to and an asset of Australia."
 
And more, from the Editorial pages of the SMH, today...

Man who would be king, but not governor-general ... yet

Prince William Visits Australia

excerpts...

"...Perhaps the royal family's evident longevity, which appears to be a trait of the Bowes-Lyon ancestry, is the problem. The Queen Mother (nee Bowes-Lyon) died at the age of 101. Her daughter Elizabeth II and grandson Prince Charles might live at least as long. This could mean William may become the British monarch around the middle of the 21st century, when he is about 70. In other words he is not quite the future king.

There is reason to welcome senior members of the royal family to Australia. Prince Harry has served with the British Army on the front line in Afghanistan, a conflict in which the Australian Defence Force is also involved. His brother, William, has not been allowed to undertake a similar role. However, William has received his Royal Air Force pilot wings and he is training to become an RAF search and rescue pilot. Australia and Britain are long-time allies and William is the grandson of Australia's head of state, Elizabeth II. Clearly, William deserves to be an honoured guest.

Australians - conservatives and social democrats alike - have invariably been attracted to the glamour of the monarchy. This was evident when in 1954 the Queen became the first monarch to visit Australia. The Liberal prime minister, Robert Menzies, and the Labor leader, Bert Evatt, led the nation in a collective fawn that lasted the length of the tour. It comes as no surprise that the likes of Cate Blanchett and Andrew Upton are reportedly among a group of Australian high achievers who have accepted invitations to meet William in Sydney.

The defeat of the republican case in the referendum in 1999 is likely to have ensured the issue remains off the political agenda for some time. This would have been the case even if the republican Malcolm Turnbull had continued as Liberal Party leader - so his replacement by the constitutional monarchist Tony Abbott has made little difference. Australia remains a constitutional monarchy partly because of the difficulty of altering the constitution - which requires the support of a majority of Australians along with majority support in at least four out of the six states. Those who support an Australian head of state are deeply divided as to whether the person should be elected indirectly or by direct vote, and there is backing for the monarchy from surprising quarters."
 


A couple of months ago the issue wasn't being talked about and then they annouce that he is coming and guess what - the issue is back in the forefront of people's minds.

I was talking to a number of elderly friends of my uncle's today, at his nursing home, when some footage of him come on the TV and they almost with one voice - 'oh he is a dear' and then one elderly bloke said 'You know what - I hadn't really thought about it before but it is silly that we are making such a fuss about the grandson of our Head of State visiting us for what 2 days - they should be here permanently and I hope to see us a republic before I die - he celebrated his 97th birthday just before Christmas and William's visit actually turned him into a republican - due to the stupidity of having a foreigner as Head of State whose grandson visited for a couple of days. Others looked at him and quite a few others said things like 'You know - I hadn't thought about it like that and I agree now - I am for the republic.'

Others, of course, argued the other way but I thought it was interesting that at least 5 elderly people have changed from monarchists to republicans because of this visit as it highlighted the fact that our Head of State doesn't live in the country.

When William campaigns against Australia, for England to get the 2018 or 2022 World Cups, others will start to also question how he, and the rest of his family, can possibly serve Australia when their hearts are elsewhere.
 
When William campaigns against Australia, for England to get the 2018 or 2022 World Cups, others will start to also question how he, and the rest of his family, can possibly serve Australia when their hearts are elsewhere.

William is the President of the Football Association in the UK, and in it's in that capacity that he's campaigning for the World Cup 2018 to be held in the UK as the FA will host it. William isn't president or patron or has any connection to the Australian soccer federation who are campaigning for the World Cup. (It's not Australia that's campaigning it's the soccer federation, just like in the UK it's not England that's campaigning it's the FA) There's no conflict of interest here, William is working for his patronage, he doesn't have any Australian ones.

No-one has any idea of where any of the royals hearts are, unless of course one has mindreading skills! (how does William feel about Kate, marriage on the cards or not?!) :D
 
William is the President of the Football Association in the UK, and in it's in that capacity that he's campaigning for the World Cup 2018 to be held in the UK as the FA will host it.
As the government's in both countries have to support the bids he is working for the British government against the Australian government and our tax dollars that are being used to support that bid. He is therefore actively campaigning to hurt Australia and Australian interests.

It matters not that he is doing it as the President of the FA because it governments have to support the bids and he is therefore campaigning against the government and people of Australia and their desire to have the World Cup here. As a future King of this country that position is untenable to me and I am sure to many others - just not on this board.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
William is the President of the Football Association in the UK, and in it's in that capacity that he's campaigning for the World Cup 2018 to be held in the UK as the FA will host it.
Here here. I see there to be no agenda per say, other than his FA responsibilities.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A survey published in The Sunday Mail in Brisbane indicates that support for an australian republic has dropped to 44%, with only 27% in favour and 29% uncommitted. I am trying to find a link on their website with the matching story.
 
This morning's Telegraph has the following:

Ray Martin's bid to change Aussie flag | The Daily Telegraph

Note the last paragraph - if re-elected this year Rudd will hold another referendum of the republic - which he always said he would do - hold it in the second term. If he follows through with the Labor Party's policy the first will be a simple 'Do you want Australia to become a republic?' This would be a plebiscite and with a Yes vote the government would then have to work on finding a model that has the support of the people.

Taking the figures in the above poll there are nearly a third of the country uncommitted - if they uncommitted follow the rest of the country that would easily take the 44% over the required 50%+1 needed for the simple majority. That would be all the government would need to press ahead with a model that would need the more complicated double majority - 50% + 1 of the total population and 4 out of the 6 states (with the territories not counted in this part of the equation but the people counted in the simple majority).

Every Australia Day we also get someone coming out and arguing for a new flag and that is another issue altogether.


Another source that also says that Rudd intends on holding a referendum if he wins a second term this year:

http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/asiapac/stories/201001/s2797321.htm
 
I might have changed my mind about a Republic, but that's only because I want an Australian head of state. My flag's another thing entirely. Hands off, Ray! :ausflag:
 
:previous:
The direct or indirect linking of changing the flag with the republic issue is a godsend to the monarchist cause. Whatever Ray Martin, former TV "current affairs" host thinks, the general Australian public will not support changing the flag. Once again the "elites" are trying to force public opinion and once again they will fail.
 
Taking the figures in the above poll there are nearly a third of the country uncommitted - if they uncommitted follow the rest of the country that would easily take the 44% over the required 50%+1 needed for the simple majority. That would be all the government would need to press ahead with a model that would need the more complicated double majority - 50% + 1 of the total population and 4 out of the 6 states (with the territories not counted in this part of the equation but the people counted in the simple majority).

That's a big assumption. I doubt all of the uncommitted voters would vote republic.
 
Queen takes on Bryce in right royal title fight | The Australian

Following the triumphant tour of Australia by its potential future king, Prince William, the Queen has reasserted her claim on the title "head of state" of Australia by using it in the announcement of her address to the UN in July.

Despite the Governor-General, Quentin Bryce, being dispatched to Africa by the Rudd government last year under the description "Australia's head of state", yesterday a spokesman for Kevin Rudd avowed that the Queen held that position.

=========================

It's interesting how a memo that the Queen has probably never seen or heard of can be turned into a "head to head" "title fight" between the Queen and the Governor-General with such little effort. :whistling:
 
Last edited:
That's a big assumption. I doubt all of the uncommitted voters would vote republic.


I didn't say they all would.

I assumed that they would follow the percentages of those who are committed.

The original poll to which I was referring had 44% for a republic with about 33% uncommitted.

Of that 33% very few have to commit to the republic but they all have to commit one way or the other.

All is needs is for 7 out of that 33 to vote for the republic for it to get up whereas it will need almost 27 of them to vote against to stop it (remembering 50%+1 plus 4/6 states).

Another way to put it:

10,000,000 potential voters.
4,400,000 have already said they would vote yes
3,300,000 are undecided.

To get a Yes not will take 600,001 out of the 3,300,000 to get the required percentage of votes whereas to stop it will take 2,699,999 votes.

I think that uncommitted votes normally fall into much the same votes as the committed when the final vote is taken which would mean that quite a few more than 600,001 would vote Yes.

I would also assume that some of the uncommitted would vote no but not enough of them considering how many of them would be needed to do so.

I never said 'ALL' of them - that is your word not mine.
 
Queen Elizabeth II could follow Prince William in touring Australia | Herald Sun

A royal tour could be on the cards later this year.

The Queen's senior private secretary Christopher Geidt has held informal talks with Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott, Victorian Premier John Brumby and state Liberal leader Ted Baillieu during private visits to Sydney and Melbourne.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

If there is a visit this year as opposed to next, then the Queen will probably be making two visits to Australia in a fairly short span of time, as the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting is to be held in Perth in 2011.
 
:previous:
I think it's more likely she'll coincide a trip with the CHOGM.
Is that possible? :)
 
As we have a federal election on the radar this year and early next year will be the NSW state election I am doubtful that there would be a visit this year but after March next year it is perfectly feasible.
 
If there is a visit this year as opposed to next, then the Queen will probably be making two visits to Australia in a fairly short span of time, as the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting is to be held in Perth in 2011.

I, for one, would not be complaining :) but it is frustrating that the focus seems to be on Sydney and Melbourne again! Her last visit in 2006 was there, so I think it would be nice if she went a bit further afield - maybe Queensland or the NT?

If she makes a tour before CHOGM, she might be able to go to Canberra and open parliament, depending on when the election is held.
 
I, for one, would not be complaining :) but it is frustrating that the focus seems to be on Sydney and Melbourne again! Her last visit in 2006 was there, so I think it would be nice if she went a bit further afield - maybe Queensland or the NT?

If she makes a tour before CHOGM, she might be able to go to Canberra and open parliament, depending on when the election is held.

The next elections can be as late as the 16th April next year, which I highly doubt as that would mean both the Federal and NSW State election campaigns overlapping as NSW must to to the polls on 26th March. For our non-NSW members NSW has fixed four year terms while nationally we have three years terms for the parliament with the PM of the day having the discretion as to when to call it within the terms of the constitution. CHOGM is set for next year in Perth. The last three CHOGMs have been in November (the 2007 ones overlapped with the Federal election itself).

That would mean she would have to come twice to open parliament and then later the same year for CHOGM - not going to happen. Even if the election is this year the opening will still probably be next year as it was in 2007 - election November 2007 and opening February 2008 (which is why the parliament can sit until April as the parliamentary term is determined from the sitting of the parliament after the election rather than from the election date itself).

To have her here early next year wouldn't be good with the NSW election. To have her open the Parliament would get the republicans up in arms - a foreigner opening our parliament (and to many Australians she is a foreigner even if she is our Head of State - interestingly the last Australian parliament she actually opened was the NSW parliament in 1992). The only other times she has personally opened any parliaments was in 1954 so it has been a long time despite her visits here she isn't normally asked to do this as the various Australian PMs haven't asked her to do so (think about the fact that Menzies only had her do it once and Howard never - that speaks volumes about the attitude of the Australian parliament to having her perform that task and Rudd certainly wouldn't ask her. He is an out and out republican and if he wins the next election has said that he will hold a referendum on the republic again.
 
Bill for state gifts to Queen a princely $709

Hand-woven, original design, tartan lap rug - $450. Fine Merino wool tie - $37 x 6. Tartan neck scarf - $37. Total: $709.

It reads like a somewhat conservative Christmas present list, but that's how much Victorian taxpayers forked out on gifts for the Queen and the royal family when Premier John Brumby visited last October.
 
I agree that the question needs to be asked again - first off the straight question "Should Australia become a republic?".

If that is a Yes answer then the government and opposition can work through a model that they can both support and put that to the people. While all they do is put models to the people that both sides don't support it will be hard to get it up but if they know definitively that the majority of the Australian public want a republic they can move forward.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Her Excellency the Governor General, Ms Quentin Bryce AC, today conducted the swearing in of Her Majesty the Queen of Australia's 27th Prime Minister, Hon. Julia Gillard MP at Government House in Canberra.

Governor General of Australia

Ms Gillard is the first Lady Prime Minister of Australia, though currently unelected. Before the end of the year a federal election will be held.

(A quick synopsis for foreign readers: The former Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd MP today relinquished his elected post as Prime Minister as a result of declining approval ratings amongst the ALP (Australian Labor Party) and the public at large, which were the result of accumulating errors of judgement concerning policy etc. Ms Gillard served as the Deputy Prime Minister in the former Rudd Government).
 
Australians will welcome republic: Hawke

Most Australians would agree to the nation becoming a republic at the end of Queen Elizabeth II's reign and the issue should again be put to the people, former prime minister Bob Hawke says.


These statements always make me laugh. Before anyone can state that most Australians would agree to the nation becoming a republic, a referendum should take place. I think that ex prime minister Bob Hawke would be surpirsed by the results. Just because Hawke doesn't like being a part of the Commonwealth doesn't mean that most Australians agree.
 
Ms Gillard is an elected Prime Minister of Australia. She was elected by her party, which is the largest party in the House of Representatives and thus she was properly elected as per our constitution and the conventions of our system (which is the same as the British one in this regard).

Australians do NOT elect our PM. We elect a local MP who gives us the courtesy of telling us with which party they are aligned to assist us make our decisions but even that isn't binding on them. After an election the party with the largest number of members in the House of Representatives elects a leader to be the PM - usually the leader who took them into the election but - imagine if the Liberals had won the last election but that Howard still lost his seat - we would have had a new PM.

The only people who voted for Mr Rudd at the last election were those in his electorate. He wasn't on the ballot paper I had in front of me so I had no chance to vote for him or Mr Howard or Ms Gillard. I have never had the chance to vote for PM as I have never been an MP or been in the electorate in which the leader of a party was standing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's been an interesting 24hours here in Aus. If the Labor government wasn't a joke before K Rudd, it certainly is now. Roll on the next federal election. :flowers:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Where is the Australian PM's office? In the parliament building or in another building?
 
Back
Top Bottom